GERAGOS & GERAGOS

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
LAWYERS
256 5TH AVENUE
New York, New York 10001
Telephone (213) 625-3900
Facsimile (213) 232-3255
geragos@Geragos.com

April 23, 2024

Via Email and U.S. Mail

Bernard T. Gugar
General Counsel
FOX NEWS NETWORK, LLC
1211 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
bernard.gugar@foxnews.com

Lesley West
Designated Agent
FOX NEWS NETWORK, LLC
1211 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
fnldepartment@fox.com

Copyright Agent
FOX CORPORATION
2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900
Los Angeles, CA 90067
foxdmca@fox.com

Re: Correction and Removal Demand, DMCA Takedown Notice, and

Preservation Demand

Dear Mr. Gugar and Ms. West:

We are litigation counsel to Robert Hunter Biden (“Hunter” or “Mr. Biden”) in his claims
against Fox News Channel and Fox News Digital (collectively “FOX”), as well as other joint
tortfeasors, arising out of, among other things, their conspiracy and subsequent actions to defame Mr.
Biden and paint him in a false light, the unlicensed commercial exploitation of his image, name, and
likeness, and the unlawful publication of hacked intimate images of him.

Correction and Retraction Demand for Debunked Bribery Allegations

Since at least May 2023, as part of its politically-motivated attacks against the President
and his family, FOX began advancing a bribery scheme allegation involving Hunter Biden and
then-Vice President Joe Biden and a foreign national. Specifically, it was alleged that the scheme
involved a $5 million payment to Mr. Biden and another family member from a foreign national
in exchange for a policy outcome. See, e.g., The Explosive New Evidence of Biden Family’s
Breathtaking Corruption, FOX NEWS (May 10, 2023) available at https://www.foxnews.com/
opinion/explosive-new-evidence-biden-family-breathtaking-corruption; Brooke Singman, Joe
Biden allegedly paid $5m by burisma executive as part of a bribery scheme, according to FBI
document, FOX NEWS (June 8, 2023), available at https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-
 Mr. Gugar and Ms. West
April 23, 2024 GERAGOS & GERAGOS
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
Page 2 LAWYERS

allegedly-paid-5-million-by-burisma-executive.

FOX’s coverage of the bribery allegations was extensive. According to one report, “Fox
Business’ Mornings with Maria and Fox News’ Sunday Morning Futures, featured references to
the now-indicted FBI informant’s claims at least 219 times in 2023, according to a Media Matters
review of show transcripts. The former, a three-hour weekday program, featured 181 such claims
over 62 episodes, while the latter broadcast the remaining 38 claims over 9 episodes.” Matt Gertz,
Maria Bartiromo’s Fox shows pushed the indicted FBI informant’s story more than 200 times in
2023, MEDIA MATTERS (Mar. 1, 2024), available at https://www.mediamatters.org/fox-
news/maria-bartiromos-fox-shows-pushed-indicted-fbi-informants-story-more-200-times-2023.
See also id. (“Fox host Sean Hannity’s program aired 325 segments about Hunter Biden in 2023.
Eighty-five of those segments, including 28 Hannity monologues, mentioned the allegation that
Joe and Hunter Biden received $5 million bribes, which the Justice Department now attributes to
false claims by Smirnov.”).

On May 10, 2023, the Acting Assistant Director of the Office of Congressional Affairs for
the Federal Bureau of Investigation, in a public letter to the James Comer, the Chairman of the
Committee on Oversight and Accountability for the U.S. House of Representatives, specifically
warned that

[i]nformation from confidential human sources is unverified and, by definition,

incomplete. An FD-1023 form documents information as told to a line FBI agent.
Recording the information does not validate the information, establish its
credibility, or weigh it against other information known or developed by the FBI.
The mere existence of such a document would establish little beyond the fact that
a confidential human source provided information and the FBI recorded it. Indeed,
the FBI regularly receives information from sources with significant potential
biases, motivations, and knowledge, including drug traffickers, members of
organized crime, or even terrorists.

See Letter from Christopher Dunham to James Comer (May 10, 2023), available at
https://www.grassley.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/fbi_to_grassley_comer_-
_biden_1023_response.pdf (emphasis added).

But despite knowing that the source of the bribery allegation was an unverified and
uncorroborated claim from a foreign national who was an FBI informant and that the allegation
was dubious at best, FOX repeatedly reported that the source of the bribery allegation was “highly
credible.” See, e.g., Brooke Singman, Person alleging Biden criminal bribery scheme is a 'highly
credible' FBI source used since Obama admin: source, FOX NEWS (June 2, 2023), available at
https://www.foxnews.com/ politics/person-alleging-biden-criminal-bribery-scheme-is-a-highly-
credible-fbi-source-used-since-obama-admin-source; Brooke Singman, FBI received 'criminal
information' from over 40 confidential sources on Joe Biden, Hunter, James: Grassley, Fox News (Oct.
23, 2023), available at https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fbi-received-criminal-information-40-
confidential-sources-joe-biden-hunter-jim-grassley (“One critical FD-1023 in question was first
reported on by Fox News Digital earlier this year. That form included reporting from a ‘highly-
credible’ confidential human source who alleged a criminal bribery scheme between then-Vice
President Joe Biden, his son Hunter Biden, and the founder and CEO of Ukrainian natural gas firm
 Mr. Gugar and Ms. West
April 23, 2024 GERAGOS & GERAGOS
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
Page 3 LAWYERS

Burisma Holdings, Mykola Zlochevsky.”); see also Matt Gertz, Maria Bartiromo’s Fox shows
pushed the indicted FBI informant’s story more than 200 times in 2023, MEDIA MATTERS (Mar. 1,
2024), available at https://www.mediamatters.org/fox-news/maria-bartiromos-fox-shows-
pushed-indicted-fbi-informants-story-more-200-times-2023 (“Bartiromo’s programs were among
the most prominent venues for the credulous dissemination of Smirnov’s claims. Media Matters
found that she personally highlighted the informant’s story at least 126 times on her two shows in
2023. Bartiromo routinely treated the allegations as credible.”).

As you undoubtedly know, on February 14, 2024, a 37-page indictment was returned in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against Alexander Smirnov—the
“highly credible” source behind the bribery allegations—for fabricating the bribery allegations and
admitting that Russian intelligence was involved in seeding the smear. See U.S. Dep’t of Justice
Press Release, Grand Jury Returns Indictment Charging FBI Confidential Human Source with
Felony False Statement and Obstruction Crimes (Feb. 15, 2024), available at
https://www.justice.gov/sco-weiss/pr/grand-jury-returns-indictment-charging-fbi-confidential-
human-source-felony-false; see also Devlin Barrett, Informant Charged with Lies About Bidens
Also Claimed Russian Contacts, Feds Say, THE WASHINGTON POST (Feb. 20, 2024), available at
www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/02/20/hunter-biden-smirnov-lying-indictment-
lowell/.

While responsible news outlets reported this explosive development, see, e.g., Ryan J.
Reilly and Rebecca Kaplan, A now-indicted FBI informant was at the 'heart' of the GOP's case
against Joe Biden, NBC News (Feb. 16, 2024), available at https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/
joe-biden/now-indicted-fbi-informant-was-heart-gops-case-joe-biden-rcna139200; Alexander
Mallin, Rachel Scott, Katherine Faulders, Lauren Peller, Lucien Bruggeman, and Mike Levine,
FBI source charged for allegedly providing false info on Bidens, which was cited by Republicans,
ABC News (Feb. 15, 2024), available at https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/special-counsel-charges-
fbi-confidential-source-alexander-smirnov/story?id=107275129, FOX initially remained silent,1
despite the fact that this now rendered the prior reporting on these allegations highly misleading.

Then, in a brazen show of no remorse, rather than walk back the story and correct the
record, FOX double-downed on the debunked bribery allegation and used Smirnov’s indictment
to claim this is an “intimidation tactic” aimed at silencing “whistleblowers,” to blame the FBI for
its credulity, and to suggest an even deeper conspiracy. See Michael M. Grynbaum and Ken
Bensinger, A Biden Accuser Was Discredited. Right-Wing Media Is Undeterred., THE N.Y. TIMES
(February 23, 2024), available at https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/23/business/media/right-
wing-media-alexander-smirnov.html.

On March 19, 2024, Lev Parnas, a former Giuliani associate, testified before the House
Oversight Committee in the course of the impeachment inquiry of President Joe Biden. Mr. Parnas
explained that beginning in November 2018, he was tasked by “Rudy Giuliani, on behalf of then-
president Donald Trump, . . . with a mission to travel the globe finding dirt on the Bidens so that
an array of networks could spread misinformation about them.” Written Statement of Lev Parnas,

1
FOX’s silence on this issue did not go unnoticed. See, e.g., Matt Stieb, Fox News Silent on Bogus Hunter
Biden Witness It Hyped Constantly, INTELLIGENCER (Feb. 16, 2024), available at
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/fox-news-silent-on-bogus-hunter-biden-witness-it-hyped.html.
 Mr. Gugar and Ms. West
April 23, 2024 GERAGOS & GERAGOS
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
Page 4 LAWYERS

March 19, 2024, available at https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/ Parnas-

Lev-Written-Statement.pdf, at 1. After spending “nearly a year of traveling across the globe to
find damaging information on the Bidens. . . [including] trips to Ukraine, Poland, Spain, Vienna,
London, and other locations,” Mr. Parnas “found precisely zero proof of the Bidens’ criminality.
Instead, what [he] learned in that timeframe was the true nature of the conspiracy that the Kremlin
was forcing through Russian, Ukrainian, American, and other channels to interfere in our
elections.” Id. at 4-5. Critically, Mr. Parnas outlined the conspiracy formed in early 2019 between
and among Giuliani and a group of political and media professionals known as the “BLT Team”
to spread known misinformation and a false narrative about the Bidens’ corruption, which they
knew to be baseless, in order to manipulate the public. Id. at 5. Mr. Parnas specified that “John
Solomon [an investigative reporter for The Hill with contacts at FOX News], Sean Hannity, and
media personnel, particularly at FOX News, . . . used that narrative to manipulate the public ahead
of the 2020 election. They are still doing this today, as we approach the 2024 election.” Id.

Mr. Biden reserves all of his rights and remedies to pursue claims against FOX and its joint
tortfeasors arising from this conspiracy. In the interim, given that the bribery allegations have
been confirmed to be false, we hereby demand that FOX take immediate steps to update its
readers and viewers that the source of these allegations has been federally indicted for
fabricating the allegations. This would necessarily include updating all digital articles discussing
the bribery allegations with editor’s notes informing readers of the indictment, and instructing
FOX television hosts, including but not limited to Sean Hannity, Jesse Watters, and Maria
Bartiromo, to inform their viewers on air that they have been sharing a debunked allegation from
a source who has been federally indicted.

Unlawful Commercial Exploitation of Mr. Biden’s Image, Name, and Likeness

While routinely defaming and disparaging Mr. Biden, FOX has simultaneously sought to
profit by the unlawful exploitation of Mr. Biden’s image, name, and likeness for commercial
purposes and reprehensible dissemination of salacious photographs depicting Mr. Biden.

The right of publicity is the inherent right of every human being to control the commercial
use of his or her identity. The right is defined in Black's Law Dictionary as “the right of [an]
individual, especially [a] public figure or celebrity, to control [the] commercial value and
exploitation of his name or picture or likeness or to prevent others from unfairly appropriating that
value for their [own] commercial benefit.”

Virtually all states in the United States recognize an ascertainable interest in the publicity
associated with one's name, photograph, and likeness. New York has codified the right of publicity
as part of its Right of Privacy statute at Article 5 of the New York Civil Rights Law, thereby
providing protection for a person's name, portrait, picture, and voice. Specifically, section 50 of
the New York Civil Rights Law provides:

A person, firm or corporation that uses for advertising purposes, or for the purposes
of trade, the name, portrait or picture of any living person without having first
obtained the written consent of such person, or if a minor of his or her parent or
guardian, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
 Mr. Gugar and Ms. West
April 23, 2024 GERAGOS & GERAGOS
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
Page 5 LAWYERS

N.Y. Civil Rights Law, § 50.2

Section 51 further provides:

Any person whose name, portrait, picture or voice is used within this state for
advertising purposes or for the purposes of trade without the written consent first
obtained as above provided may maintain an equitable action in the supreme court
of this state against the person, firm or corporation so using his name, portrait,
picture or voice, to prevent and restrain the use thereof; and may also sue and
recover damages for any injuries sustained by reason of such use and if the
defendant shall have knowingly used such person's name, portrait, picture or voice
in such manner as is forbidden or declared to be unlawful by section fifty of this
article, the jury, in its discretion, may award exemplary damages.

N.Y. Civil Rights Law, § 51.

In order for a plaintiff to make out a claim under sections 50 and 51 of the Civil Rights
statute, a plaintiff must establish that the defendant (1) used plaintiff's name, portrait, picture, or
voice; (2) within the state of New York; (3) for the purposes of advertising or trade; and (4) without
the plaintiff's written consent. Molina v. Phoenix Sound Inc., 297 A.D.2d 595, 597 (1st Dep't
2002). Although the law provides exceptions for newsworthy matters and matters of public
interest, the law does not provide protection where the primary purpose for using the celebrity
image is a knowingly fictitious work. See Youssoupoff v. Columbia Broad. Sys., Inc., 19 A.D.2d
865, 865-66 (1st Dep’t 1963) (Steur, J., concurring) (“The immunity granted in respect to
informative matter does not extend to dramatized or fictionalized versions of the event reported.”);
see, e.g., Sutton v. Hearst Corp., 277 A.D. 155, 157 (1st Dep’t 1950) (complaint stated cause of
action for invasion of plaintiff's privacy for advertising purposes or for purposes of trade because
the story was so embellished as to be fictionalized and its primary purpose was to amuse and
astonish the reading public for “purposes of trade,” not for the legitimate purpose of disseminating
news).

Here, without Mr. Biden’s consent,3 Fox Nation4 produced and aired an entirely fictional
six-part “mock trial” entitled “The Trial of Hunter Biden”, which first aired on October 21, 2022.
The miniseries is described as “a riveting look at the unresolved legal situation of President Joe
Biden’s son, Hunter. The mock trial features prosecuting attorney Doug Burns5 and defense

2
In fact, it is a misdemeanor when a firm or corporation “uses for advertising purposes, or for the purposes
of trade, the name, portrait or picture of any living person without having first obtained the written consent
of such person.” N.Y. Civil Rights Law, § 50.
3
As acknowledged in the miniseries, “Mr. Hunter Biden has not authorized this exercise, he is not
participating in this trial in any fashion, and has had no involvement in the preparations.”
4
According to its website, “FOX Nation is an entertainment streaming service brought to you by FOX
News.” See https://help.fox.com/s/article/Getting-Started-with-FOX-Nation#: (emphasis added).
5
Doug Burns is a former prosecutor who is now in private practice. According to his LinkedIn profile,
since 2003, he has appeared more than 800 times on the Fox News Channel, as well as other programs
including the Fox Business Network and Fox 5. He is not involved in prosecuting the criminal case against
Mr. Biden, and is represented for his media appearances by Lois Katz Public Relations. See
https://www.linkedin.com/in/doug-burns-9956bb13?original_.
 Mr. Gugar and Ms. West
April 23, 2024 GERAGOS & GERAGOS
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
Page 6 LAWYERS

attorney Randy Zelin6.” See https://nation.foxnews.com/the-trial-of-hunter-biden-nation/. As

FOX has explained, the mock trial captures “how a possible Hunter Biden trial might look.” Fox
and Friends, Fox Nation gives inside look into Hunter Biden mock trial, FOX NEWS (Oct. 19, 2022),
available at https://www.foxnews.com/video/6313999559112 (emphasis added).

As of the date of this letter, “The Trial of Hunter Biden” has been widely advertised and is
available for streaming on Fox Nation, as well as other streaming services including DirecTV,
Apple TV, Roku Channel, and YouTube TV.7

Far from reporting on a newsworthy event, FOX has sought to “commercializ[e Mr.
Biden’s] personality through a form of treatment distinct from the dissemination of news or
information.” Gautier v. Pro-Football, Inc., 304 N.Y. 354, 359 (1952). Indeed, the entire
miniseries is fictionalized and based on a nonexistent criminal case. The two charges which are
the subject of the mock trial are (1) whether Mr. Biden violated the Foreign Agents Registration

6
Randy Zelin is also a former prosecutor who is now in private practice and who is an adjunct law professor
at Cornell Law School. Mr. Zelin is a legal analyst for FOX News and FOX Business, among other
networks. See https://www.linkedin.com/in/randy-zelin-34a94012. Mr. Zelin is not involved in any way
in defending Mr. Biden in his criminal case. In fact, Zelin represented Charles Gucciardo, a NY lawyer
who paid “Rudy Giuliani $500,000 on behalf of a company co-founded by a Ukrainian-American
businessman who helped Giuliani investigate Trump’s political rival Joe Biden.” Karen Freifeld, New York
lawyer is source of $500,000 paid to Trump attorney Giuliani, REUTERS (Nov. 7, 2019), available at
https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN1XH29K/
#:~:text=NEW%20YORK%20(Reuters)%20%2D%20A,lawyer%20told%20Reuters%20on%20Thursday.
7
Where a defendant’s infringement of a plaintiff's right of privacy/publicity is continuing, each separate
act gives rise to a separate cause of action for purposes of the statute of limitations. See Lehman v.
Discovery Commc'ns, Inc., 332 F. Supp. 2d 534, 539 (E.D.N.Y. 2004) (“Like a publication of the same
defamatory statement in both a morning and evening editions of a newspaper, a rebroadcast of a television
show is intended to reach a new audience and is therefore an additional communication. A rebroadcast has
renewed impact with each viewing and creates a new opportunity for injury, thereby justifying a new cause
of action.”).
 Mr. Gugar and Ms. West
April 23, 2024 GERAGOS & GERAGOS
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
Page 7 LAWYERS

Act (“FARA”), and (2) whether he committed bribery—neither of which Mr. Biden has been
charged with. As Judge Joe Brown, a longtime TV judge and the “presiding judge” in the
miniseries, states at the outset of the program: “This is a mock trial. It is not a real proceeding.
To be clear, Hunter Biden has not been implicated in or charged in any crimes arising from his
activities, alleged activities. Of course, this is not a real trial. It is a mock trial.” In other words,
the miniseries is fictionalized; it is not a news event. It was made for the purpose of trade and
advertising8, and merely exploits Mr. Biden’s name, image, and likeness for FOX’s commercial
benefit. Thus, FOX is not protected by the newsworthiness exception to the right of
privacy/publicity statutes.

As the New York Court of Appeals has explained, a work “may be so infected with fiction,
dramatization or embellishment that it cannot be said to fulfill the purpose of the newsworthiness
exception.” Messenger ex rel. Messenger v. Gruner + Jahr Printing & Pub., 94 N.Y.2d 436, 446
(2000). The fact that a given film or program revolves around a “true occurrence,” id. at 445, does
not invoke the newsworthiness exception where the entire account remains “mainly a product of
the imagination,” Binns v. Vitagraph Co. of Am., 210 N.Y. 51, 56 (1913).

Here, notwithstanding the fictional premise of the series—which is intended solely as

entertainment and not as news—the so-called “evidence” which is presented during the mock trial
includes actual emails sent to and from Mr. Biden as well as actual photographs of him (including
nonconsensual intimate images discussed below). Additionally, the mock trial features individuals
acting as themselves as witnesses testifying on behalf of the prosecution including John Paul Mac
Isaac—the Delaware shop owner who obtained a laptop which he claims Mr. Biden dropped off
at his repair shop—and Miranda Devine, a New York Post columnist and Fox News contributor
who authored the book Laptop from Hell: Hunter Biden, Big Tech, and the Dirty Secrets the
President Tried to Hide.

8
“Courts have liberally construed the statutory term “for advertising purposes” to include “solicitation for
patronage of a particular product or service.” Beverley v. Choices Women's Med. Ctr., Inc., 78 N.Y.2d 745,
751, 587 N.E.2d 275, 278 (1991).
 Mr. Gugar and Ms. West
April 23, 2024 GERAGOS & GERAGOS
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
Page 8 LAWYERS

While using certain true information, the series intentionally manipulates the facts, distorts
the truth, narrates happenings out of context, and invents dialogue intended to entertain. Thus, the
viewer of the series cannot decipher what is fact and what is fiction, which is highly damaging to
Mr. Biden.

The Court of Appeal’s decision in Spahn v. Julian Messner, Inc., 21 N.Y.2d 124, 233
N.E.2d 840 (1967), is instructive. There, a prominent baseball player (public figure) sued the
author and publisher for invasion of his right of privacy under sections 50 and 51 of the Civil
Rights Law based on an unauthorized, fictionalized biography of his life intended for children to
read. Given the intentional invention of incidents and dialogues, as well as thoughts and feelings,
and the knowing manipulation of facts about the plaintiff, the Court held that the judgment of
damages and an injunction preventing the further publication and distribution of the book were
properly awarded against the author and the publisher. The Court explained that to allow “the
defendants to publish the kind of knowing fictionalization presented here would amount to
granting a literary license which is not only unnecessary to the protection of free speech but
destructive of an individual’s right -- albeit a limited one in the case of a public figure -- to be free
of the commercial exploitation of his name and personality.” Id. at 129.

Like in Spahn, “The Trial of Hunter Biden” contains “all-pervasive distortions,

inaccuracies, invented dialogue, and the narration of happenings out of context.” Id. at 127. Thus,
FOX’s knowing production and airing of “The Trial of Hunter Biden” is a blatant violation of Mr.
Biden’s rights, for which he is entitled to damages and injunctive relief.

Given the foregoing, we hereby demand that FOX (i) immediately remove “The Trial
of Hunter Biden” from any and all streaming platforms including Fox Nation, and (ii) advise
any and all third-party streaming services that they must immediately remove “The Trial of
Hunter Biden” from their respective streaming services.

FOX’s failure to expeditiously comply with the removal demands will subject FOX to
significant liability for its continued and blatant invasion of Mr. Biden’s rights. However, Mr.
Biden’s removal demand is not a waiver of, or prejudice to, any of his rights, remedies, or claims
at law or in equity arising from FOX’s unlawful commercial exploitation of his image, name, and
likeness.
 Mr. Gugar and Ms. West
April 23, 2024 GERAGOS & GERAGOS
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
Page 9 LAWYERS

Unlawful Publication of Stolen Intimate Images

In addition to the unlawful commercial exploitation of Mr. Biden’s image, name, and
likeness, “The Trial of Hunter Biden” also unlawfully published and continues to publish intimate
images of Mr. Biden depicting him in the nude as well as engaged in sex acts in violation of the
majority of states’ laws against the nonconsensual disclosure of sexually explicit images and
videos, sometimes referred to as “revenge porn” laws.
Mr. Gugar and Ms. West
April 23, 2024 GERAGOS & GERAGOS
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
Page 10 LAWYERS
 Mr. Gugar and Ms. West
April 23, 2024 GERAGOS & GERAGOS
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
Page 11 LAWYERS

FOX knows that these private and confidential images were hacked, stolen, and/or
manipulated digital material9 which were intended to remain private and confidential and which
were unlawfully procured and published without Mr. Biden’s consent. See, e.g., Jamie Joseph,
Hunter Biden sues former WH aide for altering, publishing 'pornographic' photos from laptop he denies is
his, FOX NEWS (Sept. 14, 2023), available at https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hunter-biden-sues-
former-trump-aide-over-spreading-infamous-laptop-photos-recordings. See also Craig Timberg,
Matt Viser, and Tom Hamburger, Here’s how The Post analyzed Hunter Biden’s laptop, THE
WASHINGTON POST (Mar. 30, 2022), available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/
2022/03/30/hunter-biden-laptop-data-examined/ (the vast majority of the data on a portable hard
drive purporting to contain data from Mr. Biden’s MacBook Pro could not be verified by either of
the two security experts who examined the data; the experts found that after the first New York
Post stories on the laptop appeared in October 2020, someone who was not Mr. Biden accessed
the drive from a West Coast location and created three additional folders on the drive, including
one entitled “Salacious Pics Package”).

By unlawfully publishing images of Mr. Biden depicting an unclothed or exposed intimate

part of him and depicting him engaging in sexual conduct in order to harass, annoy, and alarm him,
FOX has violated N.Y. Civil Rights section 52-b and Mr. Biden is entitled to not only
compensatory and punitive damages and his attorney’s fees, but he is also entitled to injunctive
relief, as demanded herein. N.Y. Civ. Rights Law § 52-b(2). It is worth noting that when these
same images were posted on Twitter (now X) as part of an organized effort by exiled Chinese
billionaire Guo Wengui and his followers, Twitter promptly had these images removed as violative
of its revenge porn policies and other terms of service. See, e.g., Ryan Bort, Republicans Are
Furious Twitter Took Down Pics of Hunter Biden’s Penis, Rolling Stone (Feb. 8, 2023), available
at https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/republicans-twitter-took-down-hunter-
biden-dick-pics-1234675974/.

The unlawful publication of these intimate images cannot be said to have been made for a
legitimate public purpose, where the miniseries featuring a mock trial is not accurately reporting
on newsworthy events but rather, is a fictionalized trial of a nonexistent case against Mr. Biden.
See, e.g., Nathan Place, Fox News accused of ‘revenge porn’ after airing explicit photos of Hunter
Biden, THE INDEPENDENT (Apr. 9, 2021), available at https://www.the-independent.com/
news/world/americas/us-politics/fox-news-hunter-biden-hannity-b1829404.html (“Critics have
questioned the news value of such images, given that Mr. Biden has been open about his past drug
addictions and is not a member of his father’s administration.”).

9
As you are undoubtedly aware, the hacked, stolen, and/or manipulated digital material is the subject of
several lawsuits filed by Mr. Biden including (i) a lawsuit filed on September 12, 2023 against Garrett
Ziegler and his entity for the violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030), the
California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act (Cal. Pen. Code § 502), and related claims, pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, case number 2:23-cv-07593; (ii) a lawsuit filed on
September 26, 2023 against Rudy Giuliani, his attorney, and others for the violation of the Computer Fraud
and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030), the California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act (Cal. Pen. Code §
502), and related claims, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, case
number 2:23-cv-8032; (iii) counterclaims filed on March 17, 2023 against John Paul Mac Isaac for invasion
of privacy and related claims, pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, case number
1:23-cv-00247-MN.
 Mr. Gugar and Ms. West
April 23, 2024 GERAGOS & GERAGOS
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
Page 12 LAWYERS

As for the selfies taken by Mr. Biden himself, he additionally has federal copyright
infringement claims against FOX, since Fox Nation’s unlawful publication of these photographs
infringes on Mr. Biden’s exclusive copyright to reproduce and display his work. See Cmty. for
Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730, 737 (1989) (“The Copyright Act of 1976 provides
that copyright ownership ‘vests initially in the author or authors of the work.’”) (quoting 17 U.S.C.
§ 201(a)); see generally Film and Multimedia and the Law § 9:14 (“the author of the famous ‘Ellen
Oscar Selfie’—featuring Ellen DeGeneres, Merryl Streep, Julia Roberts, Bradley Cooper, Jennifer
Lawrence, among other A listers—is not Ellen (the camera's owner), but Bradley Cooper, who
snapped the famous picture.”); see, e.g., Conradis v. Buonocore, No. 6:18-CV-1486-EJK, 2021
WL 4243720, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 17, 2021).

DMCA Takedown Notice

This letter will serve as official notification of copyright infringement pursuant to the
Digital Millennium Copyright Act (”DMCA”) 17 U.S.C. § 512(c) (3) for materials featured on
“The Trial of Hunter Biden,” available on https://nation.foxnews.com/the-trial-of-hunter-biden-
nation/.

Mr. Biden is the exclusive rights holder of the copyrighted material identified above
including but not limited to the intimate images depicted above that have been published without
authorization on Fox Nation’s “The Trial of Hunter Biden.” We hereby demand that FOX
expeditiously remove and disable access to any and all intimate images of Mr. Biden from “The
Trial of Hunter Biden” including but not limited to the images depicted above as being the subject
of infringement.

FOX’s failure to expeditiously comply with the foregoing removal demands will subject
FOX to significant liability for its continued and blatant copyright infringement. However, Mr.
Biden’s removal demands are not a waiver of, or prejudice to, any of his rights, remedies, or claims
at law or in equity arising from FOX’s copyright infringement.

Preservation Demand10
As we anticipate that litigation against FOX, as well as its joint tortfeasors is imminent, we
hereby formally demand that FOX and its predecessors, successors, parents, subsidiaries,
divisions, affiliates, employees, hosts, anchors, commentators, columnists, reporters, journalists,
officers, directors, partners, attorneys, accountants, and agents, including but not limited to Jesse
Watters, Sean Hannity, Jeanine Pirro, Dana Perino, Miranda Devine, Laura Ingraham, and Maria
Bartiromo, preserve all documents potentially relevant to the allegations in this letter including
any documents which relate to the allegations in this letter in the broadest sense dating back to at
least January 1, 2019. To be clear, such documents include but are not limited to all
communications related to (i) strategy meetings at BLT Steak in Washington, D.C. and/or “BLT
Team” meetings or communications; (ii) Skype interviews between Ukrainian officials and a
Congressman Devin Nunes senior staff member; (iii) the meeting in a FOX News conference room

10
As FOX has been on notice regarding anticipated litigation by Hunter Biden since at least February 1,
2023, pursuant to a preservation demand sent by Bryan Sullivan, Esq., there should not have been any
destruction of potentially relevant evidence relating to him. Although we are formalizing our demand here
in an abundance of caution, we are not waiving any rights with respect to any documents which may have
been destroyed.
 Mr. Gugar and Ms. West
April 23, 2024 GERAGOS & GERAGOS
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
Page 13 LAWYERS

in New York City on October 8, 2019 between and among Lev Parnas, Rudy Giuliani, John
Solomon, Joseph diGenova, and/or Victoria Toensing; (iv) the procurement, use, and publication
of images of Mr. Biden including the use of intimate images purporting to depict him; (v) the
“Salacious Pics Package” and/or “Salacious Pics Package_EDITED” folder allegedly on the laptop
obtained by Mr. Mac Isaac; (vi) the planned interview of former Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor
Shokin by Sean Hannity in Vienna, Austria in or around late October 2023; and (vii) Fox Nation’s
six-part “mock trial” entitled “The Trial of Hunter Biden; (viii) the indictment returned against
Alexander Smirnov on or about February 14, 2024.

This preservation demand includes internal communications regarding the foregoing

subjects between and among FOX employees, hosts, anchors, commentators, columnists,
reporters, journalists, officers, directors, partners, attorneys, accountants, and agents, as well as
FOX’s communications with third parties including but not limited to John Paul Mac Isaac,
Colonel Steve Mac Isaac, Rudy Giuliani, Robert Costello, Guo Wengui (and/or Ho Wan Kowk
and/or Miles Guo), GTV, Vish Burra, Jack Maxey, Vincent Kaufman, John Solomon, Steve
Bannon, Tim Murtaugh, and Igor Fruman, Lev Parnas, Dmitry Firtash, then-Congressman Devin
Nunes, Senator Ron Johnson, Joseph diGenova, Victoria Toensing, Derek J. Harvey, then U.S.
Attorney General William Barr, and other U.S. Department of Justice officials.

The duty to preserve evidence is broad and extends to all documents, regardless of whether
same is stored electronically (such as emails or documents stored on a server or the cloud) or in
hard-copy and regardless of the type of document. For example, correspondence, memoranda,
emails, communications, draft articles, reports, spreadsheets, notes, photographs, videotapes, and
other electronically stored information (“ESI”) are all considered documents that must be
preserved.

To ensure that all potentially relevant evidence is preserved, you should communicate
directly with all employees, agents, and staff who have possession or control of potentially relevant
documents, including but not limited to personnel who deal with email retention, deletion, and
archiving. You should advise each of these employees, agents, or staff to preserve any relevant
documents within their custody or control. Furthermore, you should advise all such persons that
any regularly scheduled and/or automatic deletion of email or other ESI, or other manners of
document destruction such as shredding, must be discontinued immediately with respect to any
potentially relevant data. Because ESI in particular can be easily deleted, modified, or corrupted,
you must take every reasonable step to preserve this information until the resolution of this matter.

Please confirm by 5:00 p.m. on Friday, April 26, 2024 that you have taken the steps
outlined in this letter to ensure that FOX preserves evidence including ESI and tangible documents
potentially relevant to the anticipated litigation. If you have not undertaken the steps outlined
above, or have taken other actions, please describe what you have done to ensure that FOX will
preserve potentially relevant evidence. If you have any questions about the scope of this demand,
please ask. Should FOX’s failure to preserve potentially relevant evidence result in the corruption,
loss, or delay in production of evidence to which we are entitled, such failure would constitute
spoliation of evidence, and we will not hesitate to seek sanctions.
 Mr. Gugar and Ms. West
April 23, 2024 GERAGOS & GERAGOS
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
Page 14 LAWYERS

This letter does not constitute a complete recitation of all the facts and circumstances
related to this matter. It is not a waiver of, or prejudice to, any of our client’s rights, remedies or
claims at law or in equity. They are all expressly reserved.

Sincerely,

Tina Glandian
GERAGOS & GERAGOS

cc: Mark Geragos, Esq.

Bryan Freedman, Esq.